Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Sure. My authority that says it's not Garth of Izar is the same authority of the OP who thinks it is. Simple enough for you? Or do I have to spoon-feed you the fact that it's my opinion too? I didn't think that was necessary; clearly I was wrong.

No, but it'd be nice if one would back up their opinion with the evidence that lead them to form that opinion. This *is* a discussion board, after all. A drive-by "It isn't him" post does nothing to add to the discussion.

And besides, the OP actually mentioned a few reasons for his speculation, so you can't really compare his post with yours.

It would even have been better if you'd said, "Nah, I don't think it's Garth."

__________________
"Quite possibly, the five Jem'Hadar could turn Data into a collection of four spasming limbs, one helpless torso, and one head that shouts insults at them like the Black Knight from the Monty Python sketch." -Timo Saloniemi

Sure. My authority that says it's not Garth of Izar is the same authority of the OP who thinks it is. Simple enough for you? Or do I have to spoon-feed you the fact that it's my opinion too? I didn't think that was necessary; clearly I was wrong.

The odds of it not being Garth are greater than the odds of it being Garth, which is why most of us are saying that the odds of it being Garth are better or worse than some other particular character - in our opinion.

Add something useful to the debate! Would you prefer it to be some other character instead? Are their points for or against some other character?

The villain appears to be in Starfleet - Garth is in Starfleet. By no means conclusive but a point for Garth.

Mitchell appeared and was nobbled in the comics. Ben seems to have no silver eyes. Could be points against Mitchell.

Garth can be affected by the changes made to the Abramsverse. Khan cannot.

Khan cannot?
Everything could change about Khan's story after he's revived and as we've seen it in TOS and TWOK.

His future would have changed, but not his backstory... given the point at which this all became an alternate reality, is 2233.

When Khan awoke in 2266 (or 67) he wasn't after vengeance. Everybody he lost the Eugenics War to, would've been dead for centuries. That band of supermen, augments or whatever, had plans to continue their quest for conquest... on a greater scale than Earth, since a faster than light starship like the Enterprise now gave them that ability.

Yeah, since the trailer aired I've been more and more "convinced" of a Garth of Izar connection. It's canon-enough to appeal to fans, while being basically an open door. Ostensibly, Garth's entire trajectory could have changed since 2233.

If we're being overly pedantic about continuity, using Kahn would mean having a swarthy looking guy with a pony tail wearing a red jumpsuit being awakened on a sleeper ship. All of this is unaffected by the temporal changes. I'm not saying we have to follow things so lock step, but its a problem that presents itself.

You know what convinces me? (As in, convinces me this would be the coolest thing ever).

Cumberbatch would be fantastic as the mania fueled narcissist dandy that was Garth. He's gonna play that like a bitch. It's a great role for him. The character is much more interesting than Mitchell who is just some dude bad stuff happened to.

I was asked to give my opinion as to why I don't think it's Garth. Fine.

I don't think it's Garth for the same reason why I don't think it's Gary Mitchell, Roger Corby, Ron Tracey, Harry Mudd, or any other TOS baddie that you can come up with. The target viewing audience simply would not care about this. It's purpose would only be to satisfy trufan fanwankery, and that's not necessary anymore.

I've heard the rumors too that BC is supposed to be a TOS character. I personally think that's bullshit (or at the least, he'll be a TOS character in name only). The Dark Knight Rises is a perfect example of this. While Bane was a good villain in that movie, he was completely, completely different than the Bane from the comic. But Bane was chosen for a reason: he broke Batman's back in the comic, and he broke Batman's back in the film.